linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v3 2/8] lib: add "on" and "off" to strtobool

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Fri, 11 Dec 2015 23:20:28 +0200
From:	Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@...il.com>
To:	Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
Cc:	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Rasmus Villemoes <linux@...musvillemoes.dk>,
	Daniel Borkmann <daniel@...earbox.net>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
	Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
	Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
	Mathias Krause <minipli@...glemail.com>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	"x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>,
	PaX Team <pageexec@...email.hu>,
	Emese Revfy <re.emese@...il.com>,
	"kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com" 
	<kernel-hardening@...ts.openwall.com>,
	linux-arch <linux-arch@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 2/8] lib: add "on" and "off" to strtobool

On Fri, Dec 11, 2015 at 8:50 PM, Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org> wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 11, 2015 at 9:00 AM, Andy Shevchenko
> <andy.shevchenko@...il.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, Dec 9, 2015 at 11:43 PM, Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org> wrote:
>>> Several places in the kernel expect to use "on" and "off" for their
>>> boolean signifiers, so add them to strtobool.

>>> +       if (!s)
>>> +               return -EINVAL;
>>> +
>>
>> This change I think is better to do separately. Do we have even need for it?
>
> I'm happy to separate it, sure. I added it here because several of the
> __setup and param callers do a check for !NULL input, and it made this
> cleaner. Also it seems sensible to do this check anyway.

OK.

>>> +               default:
>>> +                       return -EINVAL;
>>> +               }
>>> +               break;
>>>         default:
>>>                 return -EINVAL;
>>
>> Maybe in both cases
>> default:
>>  break;
>> }
>> …
>> }
>> return -EINVAL;
>
> I went back and forth on this. To switch to the fall-back being EINVAL
> meant I had to change all the other "breaks" into "return 0", and it
> just looked ugly to me. If that is preferred, though, I'm happy to do
> it.

I have no strong feelings about that, I prefer whatever looks neater.

-- 
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/